Computerworld takes the lack of an update for Safari 5.1 earlier this week as a sign that Apple has ended support for Snow Leopard.

Comments, anyone?

Well, they're still selling it, which would be rather disingenuous if they've officially stopped supporting it.

I note that fully three quarters of Mac users are now said to be running more recent versions of OS X, though, and given the apparent intent to bind OS X and iOS ever more tightly together, and the fact that Apple derives far more revenue from sales of hardware running the latter than hardware running the former, it wouldn't be surprising in the least if Cupertino pitched the Snowy sandbags over the side of the OS balloon.

They're probably still selling Snowy for the benefit of users who need to upgrade to get to the App Store, rather than users who actually want to run it.

Snowy's gonna go sooner or later, and it will be interesting to see what percentage of its user base Apple disenfranchises when it does go.

I'm not sure how you'll find that out, other than anecdotally.

I imagine Snowy users, like Motorola 680x0 Mac owners facing OS 9, or PowerPC Mac owners facing Snowy, will mostly bite the bullet and buy new hardware, but some will leave the Mac world in disgust, and some will keep on keeping on until their current hardware breaks, not needing the benefits provided by newer hardware and the software it requires/makes possible.

Well, NETMARKETSHARE reports and others of its ilk present themselves as accurate, rather than anecdotal, and appear to be accepted as such.

I poked around a bit on netmarketshare.com, and found their stats on OS usage for Nov 2013 and all of 2013.

Edit:
Yep, that's me. (Not having to worry about syncing iOS devices is a big saver for me and, I imagine, many others.)

I guess I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "what percentage of its user base Apple disenfranchises," then. If you mean "what percentage of Snow Leopard users become ex-OS X users when Snow Leopard support is officially dropped," then I don't see how statistics such as those from NetMarketShare can help.

Unless you're thinking that

1. There will be an official announcement;
2. It will be made in such a prominent way as to attract immediate notice;
3. Those Snowy users inclined to change OSes because of an announced policy of non-support, rather than because of the real-world effects of such non-support, will include a significant fraction who change to a non-Mac OS;
4. That fraction will itself include a significant fraction who act immediately, e.g. in time for NetMarketShare to pick up the movement in monthly snapshots;
5. Growth in use of Mavericks will be noticeably less than decline in use of Snowy, making it clear that the latter can't be explained by the former.

If that's how it plays out, I'll eat my hat.

What an imagination!

All I'm wondering is what percentage of Snowy users will Apple consider insignificant enough to warrant their dropping support for that percentage of their user base? (I expect that their decision will be based, at least in part, on a projected percentage of that percentage that will be forced to upgrade sooner or later to maintain iOS compatibility.)

Personally I don't think Apple's decisions about previous OS version support are much—if at all—influenced by holdout use(rs). As the Computerworld article I linked to opined, those decisions seem to have more to do with how many versions have succeeded the one at issue than with how many users are still using it*. But as new versions appear with increased frequency, the pressure on the about-to-be-dropped oldest one may be more obvious than before, particularly if there's something 'special' about it like Rosetta support in Snowy. Also, support for the oldest supported version may be partial compared to that for more current ones, as evidenced by Apple's response to past malware outbreaks.

And as to 'disenfranchising' users of older tech, I'd like to add that for example PPC Mac users now are dealing with formally obsoleted hardware, the last such Mac (running Leopard at best) having been made about 8 years ago. Their usability continues to diminish, especially regarding the Internet. In that respect, those Macs fully match previous generations. The oldest Intel Macs are following closely behind...

*) Note that the article includes an OS version usage graph for Nov. 2013, uncluttered by non-Mac OSes. You'd need similar usage stats for each of those older versions to document holdout numbers etc. at the time support was dropped, but history seems to support this general idea.

I don't know whether conclusions based on history are appropriate in this instance, because (as I recall) no previous version of OS X has resisted fading away as has Snowy...Apple has never before faced the prospect of disenfranchising as large a portion of its user base as will be affected by their dropping its support in the near future.

I dunno… Maybe they anticipated this taxpayer revolt and decided "Damn the torpedos...", but the free Mavericks upgrade makes me wonder.

At any rate, I think the bottom line is that as long as Snowy can sync iOS devices it'll be considered supported by those in need, and they, and the rest of us recalcitrants, will invoke "Damn the torpedos…" as respects everything else if Apple insists.

Updated OS X stats

Snowy continues to be more tenacious than its endangered relatives.

Updated OS X stats

I strongly suspect 10.9 is going to turn out to be just as tenacious.

Apple will be in quite a pickle if both OSs simultaneously outlive their pre-ordained useful lives.

As I write this, Apple has not issued a security update to 10.6 although those updates are available for all later OSs. Does this, finally, portend the end of support for 10.6?

For whatever reason, Snowy is exempt from the current security scare, as are Lion and Mounty (See here.), and since Apple has already overlooked Snowy once, I don't know that this omission is glaring.

I think iTunes 12 will be telling.

If it looks like it, feels like it and smells like it, it probably is. Consider this: Mac OS X 10.9.2 contains many update items other than the SSL fix, and was delayed at the last minute to include the latter as well. Focusing on that 10.9-specific SSL fix ignores these other 10.9.2 components, several of which also apply to previous OS X versions but were only made available for Lion and Mountain Lion (as Jon noted). Time will tell if a similar security update for Snowy will be pushed out later, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Software Update saw the iTunes update so I downloaded and installed it. Like you, I'm not holding my breath about the security update.

Apple retires Snow Leopard from support, leaves 1 in 5 Macs vulnerable to attacks

Well, that's a pain in the nether region.

First, the latest ball-scores, which show that Snowy's user-base now surpasses those of both Lion and Mounty.

We're three versions of OS X and two versions of Safari down the road from Snowy, and that, combined with Apple's infernal secrecy, makes it pretty durn difficult to draw any conclusions about how, if at all, the recent updates relate to it.

Question: What does everybody think Apple would have done had the recent security scare extended back to Snowy? Would they have just laughed at close to 20% of their user-base or seen a need for accommodation?

And in the same vein, do you think Apple would have remained silent if the recent security updates included anything critical to Snowy?

The point I'm trying to make is that everybody is relying on history in a situation in which history is in something of a shambles. (Anybody remember Hari Seldon's appearance in Second Foundation?)

I'll stand pat on my guess that Apple will not have truly dropped support for Snowy until its users can no longer sync their iOS devices without upgrading, and I'll further guess that they're playing the situation by ear, and very close-to-the-vest...committing in neither direction and leaving all options open.

Hmmm... Maybe there's something to be said for their "infernal secrecy"?

I think Apple would have stuck with their release schedule, which if I understand correctly has moved from an 18 month schedule to a 12 month schedule, and their drop support schedule which pushed Snowy off the end of the queue. Otherwise support costs directly increase tremendously and the development costs increase proportionately as well. Remember too that Apple makes their money selling hardware; Macs, iPhones, and iPads. OS X and iOS are merely the means to an end and not the end in itself. If dropping support for Snowy encourages 20% of Apple's user base to upgrade their hardware then it is a prudent business decision in line with most of the last thirty years of Apple business practice and acumen.

Coming from you, who's so consistently praised Apple's customer support, which has built such a happy, loyal customer base for them, that's a surprising statement, because the policy you're advocating would leave many of those happy, loyal customers feeling like unhappy captives...most assuredly not "a prudent business decision".

Inflexible business plans have sunk many successful businesses, and Apple, its market value notwithstanding, is not exempt from history.

By that logic, Apple should have been sunk in 1992, when it discontinued the still-highly-popular Apple ][ series in favor of the Mac; or in 1994, when the venerable Motorola 680xx processor was abandoned in favor of the PowerPC, orphaning users of software whose developers supported only the newer architecture from then on; or in 2002, when the last OS 9-bootable Macs rolled off the production line, leaving behind a large and often angry population of OS 9 users (*cough*grelber*cough*); or in 2006, when the switch to Intel processors put the Classic environment out to pasture; or with the introduction of Snow Leopard itself, which jettisoned the remaining PPC Mac owners in one fell swoop.

What makes you think the 1 in 5 Mac users still on Snow Leopard constitute a unique class?

And I'm still POed. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your POV) most websites are far more OS X friendly and accessible than OS 9 could legitimately claim. At least I entered the fray at Lion time, thus obviating a bunch of other crap ~ discomfiture.

I have never had reason to criticize Apple support and in fact I have had ample reason to laud the level of support I have received up to and including receiving a brand new top of the line iMac that was a full model later than the one that had been giving me problems. Additionally the results of any number of independent surveys consistently rate Apple's customer support far and above that of the competition. So they must be doing something right.

If history is any guide then Apple is very definitely on the right track. However, the business model you seem to prefer is out there and you can buy a Dell, HP, or other Windows boxes for less than you will pay for a new Mac.

If Apple does not support Snow Leopard on my 13" MBP, then what are the vulnerabilities if I am using virus software and not using Safari, what else is vulnerable, Java?

• Trojans — malware that you unwittingly are duped into installing but later versions of OS X have been patched to resist.
• Java Applets — that run in Safari, Firefox, Chrome, and any other browser that you run. Java applications — are not subject to the same vulnerabilities as the applets.
• Adobe Flash
• Viruses and Malware that are written for the Mac — The first thing any decent malware does is either disable any antivirus software are hide itself from the antivirus software. No antivirus software can detect a virus until the virus is known and the antivirus signatures have been updated so the virus can be detected. Of course by then it is often too late.
• Updated Applications — that are using features, deprecated commands, etc that are not supported by Snow Leopard.

I think that unlike any of the events you've enumerated, Apple's apparent treatment of Snowy users rises to the level of abandonment.

(As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is over, 'cause ain't nobody changin' nobody's mind; we can revisit the moment in 10 or 20 years when its impact, if any, has been quantified.)

I think you misread my post.


And you'll never hear me complain, either. Apple has given me a new iBook G4 to replace my in-warrantee iBook G3, and two new batteries for my out-of-warrantee MacBook, as well as corrected a shoddy repair job on the MacBook more than two tears after the fact (enabling me to get a better resale price for it).

But all of both our enumerated experiences are hardware, not software, related.


If history were a reliable guide, this discussion wouldn't have happened.

For whatever this means, Apple released an update to Epson printer drivers for 10.6 and later.

I'm not familiar with Apple's printer driver updates, Jon; do they pass on manufacturer releases, or are they Apple releases?

Apple relies in the printer manufacturer to provide the drivers and then passes them along to the user in the form of updates.

Thanks. I suspected that that would be the answer.

(I guess the people at Epson haven't been following this thread. )

I gather that yours was just a comment in passing (given artie's signature).

Printer driver updates are usually available directly from manufacturers considerably earlier than Apple's update of same.

I'm not sure whether Apple actually vets the updates and/or tweaks them in some fashion (such as only passing through versions which they continue to support) prior to putting them on the Support-Download site or via Software Update.

Quite some time ago (and it may not have involved Snowy), I had a printing issue with drivers downloaded from Epson. Downloading the driver from Apple solved it. As I recall, Epson never updated the driver so it may have been a tweak from Apple that did it.

Strange. I've had the opposite experience (one-off) with my Lexmark drivers. It must depend on how each company constructs its updates.

I was unintentionally misleading in my previous post in this thread. It is true that Apple does not write printer drivers instead relying on outside sources especially the printer manufacturer for that. But at least for several releases of OS X including Leopard and Snow Leopard, Apple used, a combination of Gutenprint (nee. GIMP-Print) and factory drivers for many printers including Epson. So it is entirely possible the driver you downloaded from Apple was an open-source product that never saw the light of day at the Epson factory.

The list of printers supported by Gutenprint is extensive and they still work in Mavericks. Over the years I have often found the Gutenprint drivers to be superior and in some cases offering more features than the factory drivers. The downside is they are strictly printer drivers and offer no support for the scanner, fax, or copier functions of today's multi-function devices.

My experience with Gutenprint has not been as successful as yours. I tried the Gutenprint driver that came with Snowy and found that many features were missing. I then downloaded the driver from Epson and all was well.

Note that this is a separate issue from what I posted before. That occurred before I had upgraded to Snowy.

Long time, no….

A lot of folks may have resisted the paradigm shifting migration from OS 9 to OS 10 , but this time around, I certainly did something I've never done before. After a week with the pimped up, dumbed down Lion, I actually wiped my disk and reverted to the previous OS. I also quit upgrading my hardware to preserve the status quo. I would have to agree, however, that whatever class that puts me in, it's not a uniquely helpless one. Apple has never given a real damn about what its current users want. They've been relentlessly, and explicitly, focused on acquiring new users from the dawn of OS 10, but I don't think backward compatibility ever even made it onto To-Do List #1.

Whether or not Apple officially discontinues support for Snow Leopard is irrelevant; it will die on the vine, chez moi, with my 2008 Mac Pro. My local Apple authorized repair shop has ceased even servicing my now "vintage" model. In the end, however, even for a diehard Snow Leopard user like me, speed is the ultimate trump card. I'll be plunking down every penny I saved by staying put, when I fork over a fortune for the New! Improved! uniquely expensive Mac Pro -- before I even get to the necessary peripherals. Any interim hit Apple may have taken from my recalcitrance is just a speck of dust on their rear view mirror, and the odds of my switching over to PCs in a fit of pique is just a mote on the windshield.

Check it! There was no good reason for Apple to drop the Appletalk protocol along with the localtalk port except to get rid of all these great old laserwriters. My HP6MP is running just fine with a print server. I just have to put in a new toner cartridge like every two years!


I'm running the latest virus software, the latest Firefox, only update Flash and Java. I just can't get into updating all the versions of Adobe and iTunes and every other thing. What about "if I like what I have I can keep it?"

No one has said you can't keep it, but you have to accept the fact that it may not be supported and if it ever breaks you are entirely on your own. In the case of iTunes that might mean you could no longer access the iTunes store or perhaps the tunes you have stored in iCloud.

The latest in the "for what it's worth" category: Software Update just offered me Mac App Store Update v 1.0.

Yes, me too.

Looks like it turned up two weeks or so ago (I've seen a post dated March 2nd.); I guess I haven't looked in that long.

(If there's anything on Apple's Website about it, it's pretty well hidden. [Maybe dkmarsh can find it.])

Interesting announcement Microsoft is dropping Windows XP support next month abandoning roughly â…“ of all computer users. So the relatively few Snow Leopard users will no longer have to feel alone and friendless in the computing world. They will have a LOT of company.

Any company, Apple, Microsoft, GM, whatever, eventually give owners either the carrot or the stick to buy the next great thing.

Well, yeah, but, in all likelihood, not for very long, because unlike Snowy users, XP users will be in fear of their lives and feel compelled to upgrade in short order. (For comparative purposes, I'll track the % in my monthly Snowy report.)

Microsoft doesn't even have to offer the $100 carrot other than as a friendly business practice, because the platform's vulnerability is is enough of a stick to get the beast moving.

The latest stats...

Snowy, perhaps/likely as a result of being ignored by Apple's last round of security updates, took a bit of a hit last month.

Windows XP also took a bit of a hit, but joemike's linked doc tells that "The company will continue to update anti-malware products for Windows XP users through July 14, 2015.", so there may not be an immediate en-masse migration.

Another possibility is that the shift reflects a bit of pent-up demand, i.e. Snow Leopard users who had already planned to purchase new Macs or upgrade older ones, but who were waiting for a more stable Mavericks release, which 10.9.2 (theoretically) was. (I say theoretically because I waited for 10.9.2 to upgrade from Mountain Lion for that very reason, and don't have the real-world experience to comment on how stable 10.9.2 might be compared to earlier versions of Mavericks; it certainly isn't what I'd call "flawless" at this point, especially the much beleagured Mail.app.)

I'm still using SL and waiting for a new Mini to be released then I will go to Mavericks.

I just ran across this response to Gregg Keizer's (your linked) article.

Cohen makes an excellent point when he notes that if certain fixes aren't made available for certain OS versions, that doesn't automatically mean these unsupported versions remain vulnerable for the flaws fixed elsewhere, because the flaw may not even apply to them. In this context I'd like to point out that Apple's updaters tend to address many more issues than the one on the 'marquee'. But if that marquee issue doesn't apply to Snowy, as Cohen rightly states, that doesn't automatically mean any of the others won't either, as he also and now somewhat disingenuously implies. Note that his argument doesn't address possible other, unmentioned flaws either. And the critical issue always is (or should be) the existence of unpatched vulnerabilities that in this case do exist.

This point is also made by several security companies, like Sophos. Adam Engst brings it up in his article Apple Support for Snow Leopard Wanes, and specifies (boldface) 'Realistically, if you don’t run Apache or PHP under Snow Leopard, and you maintain safe browsing habits (stick to mainstream sites, don’t download unknown content, and be generally cautious), I think the likelihood of trouble is low.'

But to return to my original post, that was phrased as a question. In that and subsequent posts I didn't so much state that Apple had indeed abandoned Snowy, but suggested that we're inching closer to that. I still think that's the best way to interpret the current situation.

> But to return to my original post, that was phrased as a question. In that and subsequent posts I didn't so much state that Apple had indeed abandoned Snowy, but suggested that we're inching closer to that. I still think that's the best way to interpret the current situation.

I linked to Cohen in response to your question (but I'll debunk his argument that Apple is still selling Snowy by again pointing out that it's probably for the benefit of Leopard and earlier users who must install it to get to the App Store before they can upgrade past it).

As for "inching closer", perhaps, but I think support should be all or nothing, not maybe, and only Apple is qualified to say either "yes" or "no".

No Macs old enough to have shipped with versions of OS X earlier than 10.6 can be upgraded past 10.7, so that's a pretty specialized class of users: those who have been content thus far to stay with an OS version that's now more than six years old, but who will nonetheless be motivated to jump through the hoops required to upgrade to a three year old OS version they won't be able to advance beyond.

....actually.....my 2009 MacBook, the last one offered with a removable battery, is Mavericks capable - and it came originally with OSX 10.5....and I believe the 2008 iMac is also in that category.

Aside from MacManiac's point, many in your "specialized class of users" may find Lion to be a desirable pre-whatever pit-stop.

The sad part about Apple's continuing to sell Snowy, though, is that it's not a very well-known option, and instead of people taking this route , they're taking this one .

It behooves Apple to sell Snowy for as long as it's pertinent, and kudos to them for doing the right thing.

I guess the disk and the box have become collector's items. How much is my copy of Photoshop 1 worth?

Anyway, my understanding was always that if you bought a newer mac it could not run an older system, only the one it shipped with or newer.

I hope you're right. I have an unopened box, still in the cellophane wrap, System 7.

Not at all... It's just that historically (there's that word, again), Apple would have stopped selling Snowy discs long ago, and other than some savvy folks, people think eBay is their only avenue. (Apple is still selling the discs for the benefit of users who need it to access the App Store to get Lion and later.)

Edit: As a matter of fact, the only way to navigate to the Snowy disc on Apple's Website is to follow the "Upgrade to Mavericks" links.

Generally, a Mac can't run a version of OS X that's more than a tick or so older than the version with which it shipped, but tacit recently reported having bought a new Mac that shipped with Mavericks but could run any version of OS X going back to Snowy.

I've got no idea how significant Apple to disconnect .mac and .me AIM chatting in Snow Leopard is. (Note that a workaround is included.)

Any comments, other than "The noose is tightening"?

Apple releases security updates for OS X but not for Snowy. Looks like it's confirmed that Snowy is no longer supported.

Snowy may be dead, but this latest round of security updates doesn't look like its tombstone; most of the issues enumerated in Security Update 2014-002 don't even affect Lion, so who's to say that Snowy has been ignored by the process?

Snowy may be down but still showing signs of life. Apple fixes FaceTime for 10.6 users

April Snowy report

Thanks, Artie. But it looks like even a higher percent was still on XP and Microsoft killed it anyway. Don't know what to think.

Follow the money. If it costs more to support an OS than the revenue it brings in no company can afford to support a product long. Maybe if enough of you die hard Snowy fans would get together and pledge to come up with a few hundred thousand support dollars ( more like a few million dollars) a year in subscription fees to support Snowy, Apple would be willing to continue its support for a while longer.

Well, in June 2012, Apple reported at their WWDC that there were 66 million Mac users, and even assuming that the number has remained static, that leaves 11 million current Snowy users.

Hmmm... A buck apiece ought to get Apple's attention.

It is MUCH less expensive to support Snowy than XP. I am trying to use in-store photo kiosks and they don't work because their processors are XP. Menus in fast food restaurants are having problems because they are XP based. XP is 'embedded' in so many places. Snowy has extremely limited use, mostly just used on desktops, etc. It doesn't have to be adapted over and over again to niche purposes, more code added to expand it's usefulness. Microsoft really did a lot of financial damage to a lot of people by pulling the carpet out from the things that were built on it.

Microsoft stands to gain a lot of business by replacing the foundation of these devises. It's anyone's call, but PR wise, Apple could come out the 'good guy' by letting people continue to use what works for them. The question is whether they will think that way and use Microsoft's bullying to emphasize Apple's accommodation of their users.

> I am trying to use in-store photo kiosks and they don't work because their processors are XP. Menus in fast food restaurants are having problems because they are XP based.

I'm amazed to hear that the announcement of dropped support has had such an impact so quickly; it doesn't seem at all likely. How is it possible?

Yup, Microsoft has hurt so many people, and stands to make so much money as a result, that I'm surprised that Apple hasn't rolled out some sort of product.

And as for Apple playing the "good guy"? I'm not holding my breath. (Edit: Ever see either Jobs or what's'isname wearing white?)

Yes, companies are having a more difficult time finding suppliers interested in fixing or updating a non-supported system.

I don't think Apple would want to take on this kind of back-end tasking. Their products and not their software gives their stock higher value.

And no, I don't hold my breath. I might suffocate.

> I don't think Apple would want to take on this kind of back-end tasking. Their products and not their software gives their stock higher value.

I was more thinking of this as an opportunity for Apple to get the teeniest of hooks into the PC market...possibly impress so much with software that hardware orders follow.

True, about their products, but what have they done lately? I haven't even run across any rumors.

And the sun slooowly sets in the west.

I'm skipping this month's report, because the numbers seem to be out of whack. (By way of example, usage of OS X 10.9 declined significantly, and OS X 10.1, which has never been on the list before other than in "Other", showed greater usage than OS X 10.4.)

I've always wondered how reliable the numbers I've been posting have been, but last month's reported numbers have really got me scratching my head.

It just occurred to me that "OS X 10.1" is probably the previews of OS X 10.10, but even so, it doesn't seem to account for the drop in Mavericks usage.

Let's see what happens this month.

I don't think it's so much a[n apparent] drop in Mavericks usage as it is in OS X usage. According to my calculations, OS X 10.10's share of OS X users measured by Net Market Share actually went up from 56.2% to 58.8% between May and June.

As for the overall figures, in the few years that I've been seeing the Net Market Share numbers, this kind of retrograde motion hasn't been uncommon.

> ...OS X 10.10's share of OS X users....

I think you meant 10.9.

You're right... I shouldn't have singled out Mavericks, because OS X took a major hit across the board. (Hmmm... I wonder if the entire 10.10 percentage is at the expense of 10.9 or if the beta testers are in the stats twice?)

You say that "this kind of retrograde motion hasn't been uncommon", but can you think of any reason for a 9% across-the-board swing in one month? That's a pretty big hit! I can see statistical anomalies, but this one seems unreasonably big.

What is the latest year (version) of Macbook Pro 15" (non-retina) that will run Snow Leopard?

According to MacTracker that would be the early 2011 model, introduced February 2011 and discontinued October 2011.
- Model identifier MacBookPro8,2
- Model number A1286
- Order numbers MC721LL/A (2.0 GHz) and MC723LL/A (2.2 GHz)

MC322LL/A?

MC322LL/A is the order number for the 2,4 GHz late 2011 15" MBP. Original Mac OS X version is 10.7.2 (11C74). Usually, Macs cannot run older OS version than the one they shipped with (due to the drivers required), but there are some exceptions. I don't know if one applies here, but I doubt it given the CPU difference. Perhaps someone else can chime in.

tacit mentioned a while back that his new MBP shipped with a newer OS than 10.6 but was backwards compatible; I wonder which one it is?

So, Tacit, a MC322LL/A, will it Snow, will it Snow, will it Snow?

I'm looking at this one:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/151369113793?_trksid=p2050601.m570.l4455&_trkparms=gh1g%3DI151369113793.N7.S2.M397.R2.TR2

It says it's a
MacBookPro8,2
Model Number A1286

It just has a different order number than what Alternaut said was the latest non-retina MBP that would work with SL:

That listing includes contradictory info, saying "Early Mid 2011" in one place and "Late 2011" in another, but judging from the AppleCare expiration date, I'll guess that it's a Late 2011 model that does not support Snowy (unless tacit says otherwise Edit: and I wouldn't blame him for not going out on a limb).

Edit: It's definitely the later model; the earlier one did not come with a 2.4GHz processor.

Edit 2: As a sidenote, I'll mention that I recently got a pop-up from the LA Times advising me to upgrade (from Snowy's Safari 5.1.10) to a "modern" browser...only time that's ever happened.

NetMarketShare's latest figures show Mavericks comprising 62.05% of Mac operating system use, while Snow Leopard has declined to 12.65%.

And Mavericks is unlikely to get much higher than that because of the impending release of Yosemite will pretty much bring an end to the sale of Mavericks.

They'll soon be finding saber-tooth snow leopards in the La Brea Tar Pits.

(Yosemite has already picked up a fair share, and I wonder whether there's a doubling-up effect going on, with the beta testers running it as well as [presumably] Mavericks?)